Saturday Night Live Soros Sketch

The Case of the Missing SNL Bailout Sketch: What Happened?

This is an odd story, the mysterious disappearance of an SNL sketch on the Bailout. Since $700 billion is pretty big doin's, naturally the Lampooners in Chief wanted to get in on the action — regardless of whether Congressional hearings/press conferences lend themselves to comedy (uh, they don't.) The sketch trained a carefully pointy eye on the possible Democratic roots of the Bailout plan.

Why then has the sketch, which skewered everyone from the 99th richest person in the world, George Soros to philanthropists Herb and Marion Sandler, disappeared? The rumor is, the skit got zapped because it tweaked the above, who happen to have well-known liberal leanings. It also happened to identify the Sandlers as "people who should be shot." Despite their best efforts, it's the internet — you can still watch the whole clip and see a full script, if you know where to look.

What was SNL up to? To find out, read more.

SNL has said they've taken the skit down temporarily for editing as, "upon review we caught certain elements in the sketch that didn't meet our standards. We took it down and made some minor changes." The "should be shot" line is being killed as well as references to "corrupt activities." What else is going? Any mention of Rep. Barney Frank's involvement in the subprime problem, including the line, "And thank you Congressman Frank as well as many Republicans for helping block Congressional oversight of our corrupt activities." The new version is now available.

So what's the deal behind the editing? Legal concerns — or political ones? Did the sketch go over the line?

And I also want to say that I found the Palin skits amusing too, and I'm voting for McCain/Obama.
We ALL have to have a sense of humor, just because you are voting for a candidate doesn't mean you can't see humor in their mannerisms and facial expressions. I do, I see them in BOTH candidates, and I laugh. Facial expressions and gestures make no indication of what kind of politician a person will be. I will take what they DO into account, but not their tics/tendencies.

I saw this skit first hand, and if there's a reason to remove it it's that it wasn't funny! I kept falling asleep. LOL However, I think the reasons they're giving for its removal are completely bogus.
It's the old "I can say anything I want about you and that's fine, but don't you DARE say anything about ME! I won't HAVE it!"

I agree with hausfrau in that some of the editing seemed unnecessary - what about Sandler thanking Frank, Pelosi, & the other Dems for their defeating Bush's (and other Republicans and regulators) attempts to have more oversight on Freddie and Fannie? That wasn't just funny, it's a valid point! Taking out the subtitle "people who should be shot" was probably a good idea, but they didn't need to water down the whole skit. Booo.

Well first of all the original seemed to run long to me, but that's just me I started to yawn.
My point is though and this is in answer to the article in the link above that the charge is SNL was bullied by the Sandler's and Soros because of their portrayal and as we can see in the outcome their portrayal is the same as it was in the original script.

I can see how conservative bloggers might jump to the conclusion that the Sandler's and Mr. Soros were pissed off at their portrayal in the skit and bullied SNL to edit the skit. However IMO that suggestion is barking up the wrong tree.
The outcome does not satisfy the premise. Their premise is that it was removed for editing because of the portrayal of the Sandler's and Mr. Soros. However, what we have in the outcome is that their portrayals are the same.
The only obvious editing that I can see the the removal of the suggestion that the Sandler's are people we'd like to shoot. Under the circumstances of such a resentful economic climate I would have made the same edit.

i could see the legal reasoning behind taking out the "people who should be killed" part (even though the actual people never said anything nor did they threaten to sue)
but the rest of it seems fine and the fact that they changed those parts seems shady